School system acting not so smart.

[Slater]

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/9019ccc6-8150-415f-824d-5f51169f097f.html

It is becoming more and more accepted that evolution is fact and that creationism is nothing more than an outdated "dogmatic, intollerant" anti-scientific thing, this time by judicial interpretation. The children of this country, and around the world, are being fed more and more lies, and this one may very well be the most destructive one the world has ever seen. Claming that evolution is fact is the same as saying that Genesis can't be taken literally, and when you don't take Genesis as a 100% literal account of what happened, you get a sin filled world. Homosexuality, abortion, cruelty in the business world, and a myriad of other horrible things sprout from the belief that evolution is true, and by feeding it to the children of this day is simply paving the way for nothing more than a world brimming over with lies, immorality, and, to be brief, crap.

I think that it's important that every Christian in here needs to realize that the more the devil-driven device of evolution is allowed to hammer at the foundation of Christianity (Genesis 1-11) and convince people that it is not 100% true (and even many people are wrongfully taking Genesis as symbolic today), the harder it will be for the Church to grow and serve God (and in the case of those claiming that Genesis is simply symbolic, the Church is being eaten from the inside out).

It is important that we all pray about this. Pray that the lies will be seen and the Truth will shine out!

[SonicRose]

Get the word out!

[Technomancer]

I was pretty glad that the courts had decided to have the label removed. They were put there originally for personal political reasons that have nothing to do with sound science, and are moreover misleading. This is because they create the impression of controversy where none exists- the theory of evolution is pretty much universally accepted by scientists regardless of their religious or idealogical persuasion. In addition, serious scientific debate on creationism vs. evolution has been over for at least a century now; what debate there is is largely confined to school boards and internet chat rooms. In addition, the labels are also problematic in and of themselves because they create the false impression that there is some greater doubt about the theory's acceptance. The truth is all scientific theories are provisional and limited. There is no such thing as a theory that has been proven true, they can only be consistent with the currently available evidence. That said, the foundations of the theory are as strong as any other in science and have truly withstood the test of time.

[Uriah]

If only it weren't Illegal or wrong to kill people...

[Mr. SmartyPants]

The truth is all scientific theories are provisional and limited. There is no such thing as a theory that has been proven true, they can only be consistent with the currently available evidence.

wow i never knew that!

[Fireproof]

The truth is all scientific theories are provisional and limited. There is no such thing as a theory that has been proven true, they can only be consistent with the currently available evidence.

I agree. I will say nothing more, because I tend to get worked up when debating things. *Holds in an outburst of personal opinions that might get him yelled at, banned, or one then the other*

[Shao Feng-Li]

If parents would teach their children at home the truth... Children sit in school for six hours and fed this crap 5 days a week and have church once for, what, two hours?
How are they to know the truth? *Sigh*

[Nate]

Heh...I'm with Technomancer on this one. Like the quote in your sig, by the way.

In addition, serious scientific debate on creationism vs. evolution has been over for at least a century now; what debate there is is largely confined to school boards and internet chat rooms.

I wasn't aware of this. With the way some people go on and on about it, you'd think that it was a pressing issue in the scientific community.

Oh, yeah, internet chat rooms...now THERE'S an place where intelligent people have civil debates with well thought out statements backed up by facts. [/sarcasm]

[Hitokiri]

If parents would teach their children at home the truth... Children sit in school for six hours and fed this crap 5 days a week and have church once for, what, two hours?
How are they to know the truth? *Sigh*

I was fed this crap for 6 years but I rejected it, told them they are wrong, and discussed my creation beliefs. Which landed me in some cases, a F for that section.

I thnik Public school can be good in some cases and I usually dislike home-schoolinh. I have a friend who is fed crap from his parents and takes it without question. I mean, the kid wears a dog tag around his neck when he leaves which tells his full name, where he lives, an phone number in case he gets lost or whatever, and the guy is 17.

Anyways...I believe in evolution to a certain extent...I do believe species do evolve over a extended period of time but not drastically like a fish to a bird. More so a fish like evolve a certain part of the body to adjust to it's enviroment.

As for the stickers thing, I don't really mind if it's on or off. It's the students decision to believe in what they see as the truth.

[oro!]

I have had to hear this taught to me in the public school system and am so sick and tired of it. They pound it in to you and it is on every standardized test. They spend five seconds telling you about how founded a theory is and go into it telling you little things and not showing all of the missing parts. I just wish that the Christian leaders would get to these people. I have commited myself to the Lord and that means following his word and telling other people. In Genesis 1:1 it says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That means no big bang, none of the millions of years if you read on. It uses the Hebrew word for 24-hour day. I don't konw about you, but I'm sticking with what God says.
OH, i found a good site about many incongruencies in evolution. pm me if you want it, 'cause I think we can't post 'sites here

[battletech]

Evolution is the lie the devil made . He thanks he can evolve to the level of God .He told Eve if she ate the fruit that she would be like God.

[Hitokiri]

Evolution is the lie the devil made . He thanks he can evolve to the level of God .He told Eve if she ate the fruit that she would be like God.

Now do you mean the entire eovlution theory or just bits and pieces?

Like I said, I believe a species adapts to its envioment for a extended period of time. However to have the universe craeted by dust is totally irational.

Than again atheists and evolutionists blieve we are being irrational by putting our trust in a "concept that can't be seen".

[oro!]

Hitokiri, you're right. I went to a creation science class at my church last semester and we learned of six types of evolution:
cosmic
chemical
stellar adn planetary
organic
macroevlution
and
microevotuion
The only true one is the last

[Slater]

dogs have always been dogs, cats have always been cats, fish have always been fish. I see no evolution there.

As for the comment of evolution mostly being limitted to the schoolboard and chatrooms, this is more than likely true, but that doesn't mean that it is being accepted in other areas. As I said before, even the church is starting to fall to it. Heck, there are even pastors and Christian Universities that teach evolution as truth, or that Genesis can't be taken 100% litterally. As a result, people lose faith in the Bible; they make up the law in their head that they have the authority to look at God's word and chose what parts of it God meant or didn't mean, and when this happens, faith falls apart.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
There should be a link to this site on this site if there isn't already one. Check out the bookstore, and if you are able to, be sure to buy Ken Ham's "The Lie." He answers many many things in that book, and as you can see from my sig, it's quite entertaining from cover to cover!

[Mr. SmartyPants]

awww shoot! my pastor told us a way to disprove evolution and it was so awesome! but i forgot it, i think he said that theres a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance or something in the cells in some little single celled organism to evolve into it's "next state" and continually into a human. With chances like that, thats like... impossible. And if we all were once single celled organisms. Where did THEY come from?

[Nate]

You seem to have very little knowledge of this subject, yet you still speak about it. Very well, let me clear it up for you.

Microevolution is NOT the belief that, say, an ape turns into a human. Microevolution states that the species merely adapts to its environment, causing SMALL changes in the animal itself. It does not become an entirely new creature, it merely changes certain characteristics of the animal, keeping it the same species, but slightly different.

Here is an example from a website:

Imagine that a Boeing 747 full of people crashes safely on an uncharted tropical island. Most of these people have brown eyes, but a few have blue eyes. At the risk of over-simplifying the genetics, this is because brown-eye genes are dominant, and blue-eye genes are recessive. If a child inherits brown-eye genes from one parent, and blue-eye genes from the other parent, then the child will have brown eyes. If a child inherits brown-eye genes from both parents, the child will have brown eyes. The only way for a child to have blue eyes is to inherit blue-eye genes from both parents.

Suppose that the passengers in our illustration aren't rescued for several generations. Suppose further that a blue-eyed leader gains supremacy shortly after the crash and decrees that all children who aren't born with blue eyes will be killed immediately. After several generations, all the people on the island will have blue eyes. No more brown-eyed children will ever be born because the brown-eye gene has been eliminated from the population. This new race of people will probably have other distinguishing characteristics that result from this ruthless selection process because one gene often has several effects, and other genes might be lost in the selection process, too. A new race of people will have evolved through the process of microevolution.

In the example, the humans are still humans, they have not evolved into another species, but rather have adapted to their environment and undergone small changes, keeping them genetically human, but as a different race of people.

After all, how did all the colors and races of the world come about if we all descended from common ancestors, Adam and Eve? We should all be whatever race/color they were if microevolution did not occur.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Is there any proof of that Hitokiri?

[Hitokiri]

Is there any proof of that Hitokiri?

Proof of what, the species adapt over a period of time like kaemmerite said?

Like I said, the entire big bang theory, primordial soup, fish to birds, reptile to birds, apes to humans, all that is all bogus but does have a bit of truth that put a animal in a different enviroment and it will adapt to thier surroundings. I'm gonn ause Darwin's work but the Galapagos Finches helps support that idea.

Now what about dinosaurs and the ice age? The ice age is a evoluinist theory.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

yes, microevolution is not false. Little changes in animals overtime, one example is the finches. Now finches do not become eagles, but they have different sized beaks, and stuff. But it's very insignificant

so FWRL is right, but what he said was a little vague. in a 1000 years dogs wont become 6 legged cats. No matter WHAT changes occur, the are still in that canius family

[Shao Feng-Li]

Just checking.

[Hitokiri]

One way Microevolution can be disproved is simply God made them that way in the starting of the world.

[Ingemar]

C v. E. doesn't trouble me as much as it used to (and last I looked, I'm still a YEC (dodges projectiles)).

Abortion-on-demand still does. And at the risk of sounding harsh, abortion for "legitimate reasons" doesn't meet my approval.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

C v. E. doesn't trouble me as much as it used to (and last I looked, I'm still a YEC (dodges projectiles)).

Abortion-on-demand still does. And at the risk of sounding harsh, abortion for "legitimate reasons" doesn't meet my approval.

wrong topic buddy

[Nate]

One way Microevolution can be disproved is simply God made them that way in the starting of the world.

Okay...

God destroyed all humans in the flood except Noah's family. Today, we have blacks, Asians, whites, Mexicans, French, Indians, etc.

Now, obviously Noah's family was NOT all of these races. They were...whatever race they were, we don't know.

Therefore, creationists MUST believe in microevolution, because it is the ONLY way multiple races could have stemmed from Noah's family. Microevolution is in fact proved TRUE by this example, because we are all still human, it's just we are variants from the original through microevolutionary processes.

[Slater]

like I said, buy "The Lie." Ken Ham explains very well that there is only one race of human. Scientificly speaking, there is only 1 color of skin as well. The topic is further expounded in the book "The Answers Book" by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. The situation you described was nothing more than simple genetics, really. There are not mutations going on in that, but it can pretty well be understood with knowledge of basic genetic science and the ability to read a Punnet Square.

I might also point out that there have been a lot of problems with assuming that evolution has a part in human "races." Why, the British settlers in Australia used it to nearly whipe out the natives there because the people were considered to be less evolved than other humans. Shockingly enough, this too is still taught in some schools.

[Fsiphskilm]

I think they should all SHUT UP. Not teach creationalism or evolution.

If they teach evolution then obiviously they're trying to get our/your kids to jump on the bandwagon to a theory which has it's fair share of loop-holes, yet they treat it like it's the FACT of life.

I'd rather have them NOT teach creationalsim, because if they try, they're going to be BUTTHOLES about it... Sarcastic remarks, mocking God, if they don't do it right then Just don't do it at all.

About microevolution and different Races...
my answer -> Evolution and Adaptation are two different things, millions of miles apart from each other. Get to know both very very well.

[Technomancer]

One way Microevolution can be disproved is simply God made them that way in the starting of the world.

This is an assertion and not proof. For it to be taken seriously as an argument, you have to be prepared to back it up. IOW, what physical evidence do have that this is true?

The reality is that the microevolution vs. macroevolution distinction is a red herring. No such barrier exists in actual fact. Since "microevolution" is readily observed in animal breeding, speciation eventsm and various animal populations (e.g. Darwin's finches), it's worthwhile concentrating for a moment on what it actually is. Basically, it consists of small steps in adaptation to the environment: this is the basic point of a "change in allele frequencies over time". Now (for the sake of argument) a population is divided into two and placed into two separate environments, with differing selective pressures. The two populations will diverge genetically, eventually to the point where they can no longer interbreed with each other (two new species arise, this has been observed). However, there is no mechanism that prevents this divergence from becoming arbitrarily large given sufficient time. As long as selective pressure exists, they will continue to act on the population, resulting in further change. What people like to call "Macroevolution" is no different from "microevolution" save for the time scales involved.

see the "speciation" section on http://www.talkorigins.org for more detail, a trip to your town or university library should also yield abundant material on this topic. The articles in Talkorigins also have many references to the primary literature, so you can further research the scientific ideas under discussion here.

[Slater]

once again, that is mistaking basic genetics for something else.

[Technomancer]

once again, that is mistaking basic genetics for something else.

Geneticists and biologists in general disagree. The point you are missing is that there is no magic barrier to incremental genetic change, thus macroevolution is a necessary consequence.

[Slater]

perhaps, but still, one species never changes into another. That view is completely baseless (no proof), and it goes against God's Word.